A.M. No. P-18-3848. June 27, 2018. VENERANDO C. OLANDRIA, complainant, vs. EUGENIO E. FUENTES, JR., SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Venerando C. Olandria was a defendant in a civil case for a sum of money where a writ of preliminary attachment was issued. Respondent Sheriff Eugenio E. Fuentes, Jr. was assigned to enforce the writ and attached seven gasoline stations owned by the complainant. The plaintiff in the civil case posted private security guards at the stations. Complainant alleged that the plaintiff subsequently gained control, entered and left the premises at will, and withdrew properties without proper oversight. The trial court, upon complainant’s motion, ordered the respondent sheriff to make an inventory of the attached properties.
In his Manifestation to the court, respondent stated he could no longer provide a true and accurate inventory because the plaintiff had already withdrawn the attached properties in his absence, based merely on information from the plaintiff’s representative. Complainant filed this administrative case, charging respondent with grave misconduct, gross dereliction of duty, and gross ignorance of the law for failing to retain custody and control of the attached properties and for not making the required inventory, thereby failing to protect the interest of both parties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Eugenio E. Fuentes, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court ruled that a sheriff, as an officer of the court, plays a pivotal role in the execution of judicial writs and must perform his duties with due care and diligence. Rule 57, Section 6 of the Rules of Court mandates that the sheriff must keep attached property in his custody, subject to the court’s orders, if it is capable of manual delivery. The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court further requires the sheriff to prepare a detailed inventory of attached properties.
The Court found that respondent failed in these fundamental duties. His act of relying solely on the plaintiff’s information about the withdrawal of properties, without his personal supervision or presence, constituted a clear neglect of his duty to maintain custody and control. This failure directly led to his inability to submit the court-ordered inventory. The Court rejected his defenses, including the impracticality of moving gasoline tanks and the subsequent court approval of a compromise agreement. The approval did not absolve him of his prior duty to safeguard the properties and document their status. His inaction displayed a lack of the diligence required of a court officer.
However, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the infraction constituted Simple Neglect of Duty, a less grave offense, and not the more serious charges initially filed. Considering it was his first offense, his frontline functions, and to avoid disruption of public service, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month and one day of his salary at the time of the decision’s finality, in lieu of suspension.